To scrum, or not to scrum: That is the school rugby question

I coached an under 15 team at a private school in Melbourne in the late 1980s. Boys at that school did not start playing Rugby until year 9. I had to teach the game from scratch to most players which in retrospect was a bad thing, considering that my background was in Rugby League. My first job as coach was to find players with the right body shape to be props. The scrum rules had recently been rewritten for schools as a result of serious neck injuries occurring in school rugby. The first rule was not to play people with the wrong body type (long thin necks) in the scrum. The second rule was "no eight man shoves". I watched "Australian Story" last night and I got the impression that the THP whose neck was broken was not the right body type to be playing in that position. He looked a fine strong young man, but not well adapted to be a THP. Scrums are inherently dangerous, but I think they could be changed, and there have been some good suggestions on this thread. I would not like to see Union scrums becoming like League scrums, but seriously, what is the cost to players, their families and communities of young people being disabled by busting their necks to win rugby scrums? My son grew up playing Aussie Rules, for which I am very glad, given he is tall and lean, not the right shape for any form of Rugby, and he still suffered lots of injuries. When I started playing League at school, all teams up to high school level were in weight divisions until A level in senior high school. I think that would be a good thing for union, but not without its problems. I think that all sports participation must be voluntary, and that players should not be pushed to compete at risk of disabling themselves unless they have desire, aptitude, and appropriate physiques.

I wonder why as a society we think we can or even should remove all risk from every aspect of our lives. People have been suffering injuries since humans began walking the planet and they will continue to do so until we cease. All the pursuit of a risk free society does is reduce the life that we all have a right to live. Soon we will be reduced to no more than a unit of economic production. I have 3 boys and I coach a GPS premiership winning A level rugby team. I bring my own boys up with lessons in risk management not risk avoidance and I coach my team to play with vision, cohesion and fearlessness. We suffered no injuries on the rugby field this season. I feel empathy for those that were injured, but wonder would they have played if the sport was hobbled beyond recognition. I beg the fearful to not destroy our game, our society, our human right to live a life of our own choosing.

The concern would be that you then have kids bigger and stronger but with no skill base competing in scrums, although you might reduce the injuries in those not scrumming or tackling injury rates post would go up as the players have not had the chance to develop skills in these areas and are now bigger stronger faster and more likely to do damage with lower skills/ technique

In juniors the contest has to be more even through grading by weight, not age. The mismatches are "hugely" dangerous. Not all juniors develop size wise at same rate. Many good players that may have grown into great players quite rightly leave the game at an early age. If union goes towards 3 or 5 player scrums, or no pushing in the scrum, then it will no longer be a game for all and all sizes... like league and 7s. The big boys in the front row and slow locks etc will be lost from the game.

I started playing league in WA at 14, as there was no rugby. The club I started with was new, made up of almost entirely new players, with a few expat Kiwis. The coaching staff refused point blank to train the kids in any kind of tackling at game speed, we didn't even use tackling dummies. The closest we got was a few very slow speed demonstrations of where everything should be. After a 6 odd week preseason we had done exactly zero tackling. Game 1 was an absolute blood bath, not just on the score board, but boys who had no idea what they were supposed to do trying to bring down experienced opponents. Players going high, grabbing jerseys, leading with their heads, heads down. It's a bloody miracle no one was seriously hurt, and when I look back now I am actually pretty angry. By game 3 or 4, most of the problems had been worked out, the kids who didn't like getting hit had all quit (so what was the point them training all preseason?) and those that remained, if not still great tacklers, at least knew what they were supposed to be doing. The thing is though, psychologically the damage had been done, there was very little confidence in contact from most players and many, though they now knew how to, were afraid to tackle. This is how I imagine things will go if young kids aren't learning to tackle in a safe manner and it's suddenly sprung on them - that confidence in contact needs to be instilled at a young age.

Dwards, when it comes to scrums, I think that it is necessary for minimum size and strength to come into consideration. However, when it comes to props and hookers, I think we should also be looking at Body Shape. One or two of those scrum injuries in the GPS comp in Qld this year, it was worth noting the size and shape of the person injured. Important that long necks are not the best as a prop and hooker. Amazing to think that years ago - the great Russian system tested all athletes as to their body size and makeup (as children) combined with genetics as to the sport they played. Maybe we need to look at it more closely.

MZ, it is the same photo that is shown in the email list. Looks like Hooper in need of a mental evaluation.

Why not just make a change away from age group divisions in juniors, and select players on size instead? It would have to be more helpful than just throwing kids together just because their ages match! In my sons u8's team, there's a boy who weighs 98kgs. My son is 27kgs!

I think In Brief's ideas are really interesting in regards how to reduce the risk of neck injuries in scrums. Better coaching, and uncontested scrums in the lower grades would, of course, help, but even with the best technique accidents can happen. I heard the mother of the Terrace boy (who suffered the spinal injury) on the radio saying that even though he had his long tags on, his foot lost traction and he fell awkwardly - and the weight of the scrum did the rest. If the structure of the scrum could be changed to make it virtually impossible for even an accident to cause a collapse, then the loss of spectacle would be worth it if it meant preventing quadriplegia.

The answer for tackling is quite simple - teach correct tackling technique. I played league and union for a 11 years straight and was never knocked out in the tackle. That despite loving to put on a big hit - one of the few things I was actually good at. When you watch rugby union, even at international level, a number of players continuously place their heads on the wrong side. It's just a matter of time before they get knocked out. The solution to scrums in my humble opinion is to remove the penalty, as I think this will remove the collapse. The reason scrums collapse is that one team is trying to milk a penalty. The second change I would make it to NOT reward dominant scrums. In other words you don't use the scrum to smash the other scrum into the ground, but rather to obtain possession. Make it a raking contest between the hookers, not a pushing contest. If that fails you could replace scrums with mauls -which is what scrums originally were. So one team gets the ball and sets a maul, the other team defends the maul. Set scrums and the specific position of hooker/ prop etc would become obsolete. The benefit of this would be to speed up the game and still suck in the defenders. Another final left field option would be to reduce the number of players in the scrum to 3, as per 7s. This avoids the collapse and speeds up the game, but you have more defenders in the line. If that works, you can build up the numbers to 5 - maybe 8 doesn't work and 5 is the magic number?

Good article, Caddyshack. Lot to think about there. As a former forward, I would be sorry to see the scrum go. I long ago coached at schools !st XV level, and produced very powerful scrums. But I would hesitate to coach in the same way now, as there are real risks at scrumtime, especially with poorly coached players, and weight/size mis-matching in the front row.

Scrummaging is the bigger problem as you have the weight of 8 against you and the weight of 8 behind you. If you get it wrong it can be disaster. That is at any age. The second most, and this occurs in league is gang tackles, where one has multiple tacklers against him. One on one done legally is rarely a problem.

Years ago there was a mandatory period on the sideline after a concussion (several weeks) this was applied at all levels. I’m not sure when or why this was dropped but it would be a great thing to reintroduce. It’s generally accepted that it’s tge second hit that does the more damage with head injuries which is why the mandatory stand down was applied in the first place.